Blogs

NELA Signs Onto Amicus Brief Supporting FMLA Plaintiff In Ninth Circuit

By Rebecca Hamburg posted 07-03-2012 03:49 PM

  
The National Employment Lawyers Association joined the National Partnership for Women & Families, A Better Balance, California Women's Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, National Women's Law Center, and 9to5, National Association of Working Women, on an amicus curiae brief filed on June 13, 2012, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms. The plaintiff appellant, Maria Escriba, informed her employer that she needed leave to care for her ailing father who was in the hospital, but her employer failed to provide notice of her right to family care leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Ms. Escriba was later fired while she was caring for her father. Ms. Escriba is appealing from a jury verdict in favor of the employer. The ruling below upholding the jury verdict was premised on a flawed interpretation of the law that Ms. Escriba essentially waived her FMLA rights when she failed to invoke the FMLA when requesting leave to care for her father.

Our amicus brief highlights the FMLA's central intent to provide meaningful access to job-protected leave in order to prevent workers from losing their jobs when they need to care for a family member with a serious illness. The brief also highlights the regulations requiring employers to provide notice of FMLA rights. Finally, the brief offers data about workers' lack of familiarity with the FMLA to underscore the critical need for employers to fulfill their legal obligations to provide proper notice of those rights.

NELA members Elizabeth Kristen and Sharon Terman of the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center in San Francisco represent Ms. Escriba. To read NELA's brief, please click here.
1 comment
180 views

Permalink

Comments

07-16-2012 06:24 PM

Thanks to the Plaintiff's lawyers and all the organizations and groups signing onto an amicus brief in support of Ms. Escriba's case. This really is a significant case and the Plaintiff's longevity with her employer and presumed language barrier make it all the more significant that this case and the FMLA "notice" issues at stake be pushed.